Saturday Open Thread

– I’m not sure it’s possible to exaggerate the differences that would exist if Gulet Mohamed and Jared Loughner were in each other’s respective situations. If Congresswoman Giffords and 18 others had been shot by a Muslim-American like Mohamed, all of the people who are falling over each other trying to absolve the paranoid and eliminationist right of any responsibility would be screaming bloody murder about how the entire Muslim world was responsible. And if a white American like Loughner were held by the FBI after visiting relatives in Europe, tortured, put on a no-fly list and prevented from returning to his desperate and anxious family (with no evidence that he’d committed any type of crime), there would be a bi-partisan consensus demanding that Obama step down over it.

– Last night on Real Time with Bill Maher, Stephen Moore humiliated himself more than anyone I’ve seen since Michael Steele did (right before he became RNC Chairman). It got so bad, he was trying to act surprised when others were pointing out to him that mandates were a Republican idea.

– One of the most horrific domestic drug war tragedies of the past few years will be in the spotlight again next week. Cheye Calvo, the mayor of Berwyn Heights, MD, is suing Prince George County over the 2008 drug raid where he and his family were mistakenly targeted by a SWAT team that also shot their two dogs.

– Video of Thursday’s testimony from Olympia on the medical marijuana bill SB 5073 can be seen here on TVW. Most of the testimony against the bill was fairly unconvincing with the exception of some testimony explaining that the workplace discrimination protections may not viable. This is a tricky issue to get right. It’s difficult to balance the need for any employer to fire an individual who is impaired at work and incapable of performing their duties with the need to protect individuals who use medical marijuana outside of work, are fully capable of doing their jobs, but who test positive in a drug screening.

@1Doesn’t this guy pretend he’s an economist? I know he pretends to write something intelligible for the execrable WSJ Editorial page.

Yeah, I think pretending is the only word that fits. We don’t seem to make a distinction in economics between those who study it as a fact-based science and those who have a faith-based system that they apply to everything they encounter. In economics, the astronomers and the astrologers are both called “economists”. We should probably have a different term for folks like Moore. Not sure what would be most appropriate.

That Utah police shooting (murder) of a pot-smoker meth-head posted in the thread is very, very, very disturbing.

People in this country really need to wake up. We now have a police force almost everywhere that can barge into your home without knocking for almost any reason and shoot you dead. And we don’t seem to care. What time is American Idol on?

Conservatives have no problems with little girls being executed by law enforcement. It has happened several times over the years. As long as the little girl is brown, and the cops are protected by their “procedures” and a cop-friendly justice system.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck were calling Shawna Ford a hero as I recall. She was a local was she not? From Everett I believe.

If the cops get it into their heads to murder someone, they will. Simply because they know that no matter what, they will be supported by the conservatives on TV and Radio, as well as the Conservative community at large. If the motive is pure greed, on the part of a heavy contributor with connections to a certain political organization they will find a reason, even if they have to make one up.

I don’t hear about any liberal organizations supporting the murder of innocent civilians and little girls, but there are plenty of American conservatives (Fascists) that do.

Heh, calling me a commie doesnt make it so. And yes, I have seen many fascists defending and praising the actions of the police when that shit happens. The entire tenet of fascism is based on maximum force all the time, something the American conservatives embrace openly, willingly and with great enthusiasm. I’ve never heard a liberal openly call of “total war”. But it is a regular theme of the modern American conservative

I’ve never heard them criticize the police, ever, when brown people are involved. Even when its a little girl being murdered. I read the forums at Free Republic after the Arizonqa Shooting. They were, to a man, praising the shooter, and rationalizing the death of the little girl who was killed, saying things like how she was going to grow up to be a liberal treehugger feminist.

So fuck you.

Some day, your SS police are going to do it to the wrong person, and all I’m going to do is shake my head and watch your world implode.

Hmmm let’s see what DeathFrogg (definitions aptly provided by post #12) is farting about on Free Republic…

Maybe this upset the “frog”

The guy should be tried, convicted and hung.

Why wasn’t this kook Loughner in a rubber room at the nut house wearing a straight-jacket?

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.

Yeah, shift the blame. Sherrif Dupnik was powerless to make an arrest on Loughner, for the simple reason that Loughner hadn’t done anything yet. You cannot arrest someone for “precrime”.

But you fascsisti would never admit that. Your leadership has already announced its intention to create legislation to do that very thing. Arrest people before they commit a crime. For just maybe thinking about it.

Certainly, thats what the Nazis and Communists did. It was a major aspect of the stories I was told about both when I was growing up. It was one of the main reasons they were the bad guys.

Funny, you coming in here to praise the Freepers, when all they are is a bunch of neonazi skinhead types. Read it long enough, and you’ll see them link to Stormfront and other white supremecist websites. It’s a large part of their belief system.

Jesus, you really do push the boundaries of pure, unadulterated ignorance.

He wasn’t asked to. Police cannot act on their own without someone, somewhere, telling them they should do anything. The Supreme Court has already ruled several times. The police do not exist to prevent crime, nor are they in any way, shape, or form, obligated to endanger their own lives or take action outside of departmental procedure.

If the congresswoman had asked them for protection, they would have been there. She did not ask. They had no reason.

If the conservatives hadn’t shedded federal obligations to the mental health system back in the late 1970s, or defunded the entire system in the 80’s, this probably would not have happened.

How do we penetrate Free Republic? I’d like to know anyone’s ideas on penetrating that forum. I registered today and posted an article about Jewry [stupid site deleted by me] and it was pulled within an hour (probably sooner) and I was banned.

Come back when you actually read Free Republic instead of taking kook-aid from DUmmies!

So you are one of those let’s wait until it happens types eh frog? That’s the problem with leftists. Your kind always wait until it happens they whip out the blame game. Talk about stupid.

Police act on their own a lot. I was stopped in two driving while black incidents with my children in their car seats. Police do what they want when they want. You can’t read the continual posting of Lee all over this blog? Are you blind?

Even some leftists are asking why Dupnik wasn’t proactive. You can easily find this out!

Prove the Freepers were cheering the death of Christina. You can’t so you play that off.

PROVE IT!

Then you claim Freepers like Stormfront. Now you play that off.

PROVE IT!

Dupnik knew Loughner was an unstable person. Glad to see you think some leftists are stupid for asking why didn’t Dupnik have a deputy there. But those are only people wonder why and you revert to the standard progressive name calling.

Oh god – and here I thought Pud had gone to ground, or rather, the Pud algorithm had gone offline. Dare to dream. OTOH, Pud does provide a useful window onto the world of the wingnut mind, without having to actually listen to Glenn Beck or read FreeRepublic or Stormfront or wherever it is that those folks hang out together. By spewing, apparently without filter, the latest right wing cant, we do get to evaluate what they’re saying. I suppose that’s something, even if it’s industrial strength stoopid.

@29 Well, the libertarians (see e.g. the latest issue of Reason) do a pretty good job of watchdogging the cops. Better than the Democrats and the left, generally, in my opinion. No, they aren’t conservatives, but they aren’t liberals either. It is too bad that that more Democrats, haven’t been able to form alliances with libertarians. Unfortunately, the alliance between the right and the libertarians continues despite the authoritarian tendencies of much of the right. I think the left and the libertarians could and should be in alliance, and it is a failure if the left that this hasn’t happened.

@92 Oh, I just want to add that Krugman has a Nobel Prize and puttybutt doesn’t because they don’t give Nobels to idiots.

Well that’s nice Roger Dumb Bunny…

I think the model is something like Clinton who, in fact, mostly was just riding on a successful economy that was successful mostly for reasons that had nothing much to do with him. – Paul Krugman

Well it seems Paul Nobel Krugman is AGREEING with me Roger Dumb Bunny. Been saying this for years! SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET! Eventually progressives will tell the economic truth about the US economy and how progressives have little to do with the US economic engine success.

Then again, there was no recession during the two terms of Clinton’s presidency and the recovery continued all the way through, taking us in the late 1990s to low levels of unemployment, rapid growth, and widely shared prosperity.

I should also add that in 1993 when the Democarts and Clinton wanted to pass a law raising taxes to reduce the deficit, Republicans yammered that it would be not just disastrous but absolutely ctaastrophic for the economy if it passed. It passed, and it wasn’t.

Here is just some of the rhetoric employed by Republicans in 1993 to fearmonger about Clinton’s tax increases (there’s more below the fold):

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), February 2, 1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX), May 24, 1993: I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-GA), July 13, 1993: Small businesses generate the bulk of this Nation’s new jobs. And they will be the hardest hit by the Clinton tax-and-spend budget. Because, when you raise taxes, you kill jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Of course, far from bringing the Doomsday of which Republicans were warning, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment. Incomes grew under Clinton but fell under Bush, while poverty did the opposite, falling under Clinton but increasing under Bush.

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), February 2, 1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX), May 24, 1993: I would much rather be here today supporting the President and I would do so if his proposals could expect to increase jobs and the standard of living for Americans, but I believe his massive tax increases will do just the opposite. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-GA), July 13, 1993: Small businesses generate the bulk of this Nation’s new jobs . And they will be the hardest hit by the Clinton tax-and-spend budget. Because, when you raise taxes, you kill jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Thomas)

Rep. John Kasich (R-OH), August 5, 1993: Do you know what? This is now your package. We will come back here next year and try to help you when this puts the economy in the gutter. And virtually every major economic estimating firm in this country says your bill is going to kill jobs. (Congressional Record 1993, Page: H6249)

Rep. Robert Dornan (R-CA), August 5, 1993: The problem with our economy is that there is too little employment and too little growth. This plan will do nothing to improve that condition and will actually make it worse. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H6148)

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-MN), March 17, 1993: These new taxes will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues, and increase the deficit. Economists across the ideological spectrum are convinced that the Clinton tax increases will lead to widespread job loss. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H1355)

Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), March 18, 1993: The budget proposal offered by the Democrats is a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster…It proposes to increase taxes at a time when we have a fragile economy–higher taxes will only stifle job creation and economic growth.(Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H1454)

Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), August 2, 1993: The impact on job creation is going to be devastating, and the American young people in particular will suffer a fairly substantial deferment of their lives because there simply won’t be jobs for the next two to three years to go around to our young graduates across the country. (CNN)

Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), August 4, 1993: However Clinton wants to spin his tax plan, the bottom line is this: It will raise your taxes, increase the deficit, and kill over 1 million jobs. (Congressional Record, 1993, Page: H5745)

Billy Graham, age 92, said that if he had to do it all over again, he would have avoided entanglements with politicians completely.

“”I . . . would have steered clear of politics,” Graham, now 92 and in need of round-the-clock care, said via e-mail in response to questions from Christianity Today, the evangelical monthly he founded in the 1950s….”

Unfortunatly, his son Franklin Graham, heir apparant to his ministry, doesn’t seem to see it that way. Rather than distancing himself from politics, he has settled firmly into the anti-Obama camp, becoming friends with Sarah Palin and being rather outspoken about his criticisms of Obama.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.